Posted on 11/02/2008 9:57:48 AM PST by FocusNexus
Reagan's landslide challenges the pulse-taker profession
For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was "too close to call." A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.
But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote - a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-l avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.
After being so right for so long about presidential elections - the pollsters' findings had closely agreed with the voting results for most of the past 30 years -how could the surveys have been so wrong? The question is far more than technical. The spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Polling would be illegal. If it demoralizing effects tended to help the Republicans.
I have been a election judge in my precinct for many years and know first hand many of the voters. It is a conservative precinct in a conservative city and county in a bellwether state. After all, this precinct and county voted for Goldwater in 1964. I believe my precinct will vote for McCain but the margin of victory will be substantially reduced from 2004. People are blaming Bush and the GOP for the nations problems be it rightly or wrongly. It does not really matter, they are much less inclined to support the GOP this year than in years past. I suspect we will lose not only the presidency but a good many seats in the House of Rep and the Senate but almost as bad we will probably lose the governorship, and many seats in our state legislature.
Most people think we have been tremendously ill served by the Republican President who has so little leadership ability and the Republicans who have so disgraced themselves from Cunningham to Foley and continuing now to Stevens during the last two Congresses.
Since Obama was not really a factor in an administrative or legislative capacity during the last 8 years, he will escape any portion of the blame.
When the pollsters are so politically biased they become irrational and make the polling questions biased as well.
They can’t simply ask, “Which Presidential candidate are you voting for?”
Instead, they ask questions such as, “Do you prefer a candidate that gives you a middle class tax break?”, then assume only Obama is doing so and mark the person as voting for Obama.
They also poll “Republicans” in libral cities. They assume Republicans that might vote for Obama in Atlanta represent Republicans in Denver or Witchita, so they skew the results taken from Atlanta as results representative of the entire US.
The pollsters also have been adding fudge factors. They poll what they call scientific respresentations then add a more for Obama by saying that “probably” more blacks than average will vote this year and those blacks will be voting Obama.
I take these polls with a grain of salt.
“Voting it’s not a constitutional right. Show me where in the constitution such right is.”
Are you seriously that ignorant of the United States Constitution???
Electioneering at 50 feet? What state are you in.
I am an election judge here in CA and it is 100 feet from the entrance of the voting room.
I was just polled by Rasmussen. I lied through my teeth. I doubt that I’m the only one.
Too much to hope for. I’ll be satisfied with any result, no matter how narrow, that keeps Obama out of the White House.
“I lied through my teeth.”
WHY?
that’s only helping the whole media GOP vote suppression tactic.
**Are you seriously that ignorant of the United States Constitution???**
they’re right... Nothing in Constitution...
Voting is NOT a NATIONAL thing.. there are 50 state elections. We vote for our local, state etc and vote for Electors for President... WE DO NO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. that is the ONLY “”National Office” we just tally electors for the Electoral College.
Trust us, or REread your Constitution. If you don’t have one ... Why the F*** NOT?? Heritage.Org has been giving them away all year .. mine is right here next to my printer.
The quote is “Voting is not a Constitutional right.” Voting most certainly is. Your post is gibberish.
The Bradley effect is labled as white racism.
What is it called when blacks say they will vote for Hussein Oblahma and don't? They will never admit it. Exit polls will show Osama with 98% of black vote.
If 45% of voters think Hussein is Mohammedan, what % of blacks have that opinion? Everything else is broken down by race.
yitbos
Carl Rove has an answer. A lot of voters were waiting until the last day to see if the hostages were released. Carter said that was all he was doing in the White House, working for their release. When they weren't, they voted for Reagan to get the job done.
This should be a lesson to Oblahma and the U.S. electorate. Give a deadline and the enemy will hold you to it.
yitbos
> The First Amendment.
I think an equally valid argument could be made about premeditated election tampering.
Talk to the US Supreme Court .. in the Decision of Bush v. Gore ...THEY say there is no right to vote in the United States Constitution.
The Gibberish is between your Ears, my friend. ReRead before you post again.. you’re showing your Ignorance,, reinforced with ARROGANCE... making you sound like a LIBERAL.
Well, stupid, learn to read: Bush Vs. Gore
They far from said anything of the kind. The arrogance is by you, the stupid and unread, who thinks he read somewhere on the Internet something and repeats it as though he has heard from God himself.
The court said that "unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College", and they have, so we do have the right. In law, ALL the words mean something. Read them.
The US Constitution also calls out the other rights to vote such as for Representatives. If you want to specifically state voting about the President then you might want to go back to school and learn about English composition. Until then, when you say, "There is no right to vote in the constitution", you will be called on it. If you’ve got that thin of skin, stay off the playground.
Well I can tell you from my own personal experience that some times we do go in to the polling booth and change our mind at the last minute. My husband and I both did that in our Primary and in the general election - we voted early. At the last minute we both decided to vote for someone other than McCain in our Texas primary. He already seemed to have it but we voted for our favorite instead, during the primary. We both decided after getting into the booth. We told each other later what we had done. Same with early voting in the general election. We have a small bond issue and I was dead set against it, and at the last minute I voted for it. So we do some times change our mind when we go pull the lever. In 1972 it was my first time to vote and it was a very difficult decision.
Actually, the founders didn’t intend for the people to elect the President and the Vice President. They didn’t think the citizens of the United States as a whole were educated enough to elect the President and VP. Thus, they created the Electoral College system and gave the state legislatures the right to chose the electors and for the first few elections the state legislatures chose the electors themselves. S.C. chose the electors up until the Civil War. Any state at anytime could chose to do away with the current system of allowing the popular vote of the state to decide the electors and chose the electors themselves, which is what the FL legislature threatened to do during the 2000 FL fiasco. Speaking of the 2000 election, by a 7-2 vote, the United States Supreme Court ruled there isn’t a Consitutional right to vote for President of Vice President.
I always lie to polsters.
Re-reading your initial reply, I went too fast, I had incorrectly inferred that you were of the same opinion as the other poster, insisting that the right to vote can be found nowhere in the USCon, not that you were specifically referring to pres and veep. You are correct, we initially did not have direct election of any other than Reps to the House, the people fouled up state representation when they decided to ignore the musings of the Founders, who had sought for a balance of power, not just between the three branches but between states and the fed as well. I have long since given up explaining to people that on Election Day, they are not choosing who they want to be pres/veep, they are choosing electors. Same with the primaries, they are not voting for the candidate, but are electing delegates to the convention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.